Faber v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Faber v. New York City Housing Authority

227 A.D.2d 248, 642 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5254

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 248 (Faber v. New York City Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Faber v. New York City Housing Authority, 227 A.D.2d 248, 642 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered December 13, 1995, which granted defendants’ motions for a bifurcated trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that he was made dizzy when he was hit in the head by the door of a malfunctioning elevator in a Housing Authority building and that the dizziness later caused him to fall off a subway platform and be hit by an oncoming train. Defendants Transit Authority, Housing Authority and elevator maintenance company, who defend on the basis that plaintiff jumped off the platform in an apparent suicide attempt, want a bifurcated trial, arguing that plaintiff’s injuries, which include amputation of one leg and paralysis, have no important bearing on the issue of liability. In opposition, plaintiff argues, [249]*249albeit without expert support, that had he jumped off the platform he would have sustained additional injuries to his upper torso, such that his injuries do have a bearing on the issue of liability. Assuming this to be true, plaintiff’s concerns should have been assuaged by defendants’ offer to stipulate to the absence of torso injuries and not to oppose the introduction of evidence of the head injury caused by the elevator door. Thus, plaintiff will be able to make the liability jury aware of the nature of his injuries to the extent necessary to show that a head injury caused him to fall off the platform and to argue that torso injuries would be present had he jumped. Although plaintiff does not argue that his leg and spinal injuries could only have happened if he fell, making those injuries seemingly irrelevant to liability, simple observation will make the jury aware at least of plaintiff’s loss of a leg. Bifurcated trials are encouraged (22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]) unless the nature of the injuries are such as to have an important bearing on liability (Mignott v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 101 AD2d 731), and are meant precisely for situations such as this. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered December 13, 1995, which granted defendants’ motions for a bifurcated trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that he was made dizzy when he was hit in the head by the door of a malfunctioning elevator in a Housing Authority building and that the dizziness later caused him to fall off a subway platform and be hit by an oncoming train. Defendants Transit Authority, Housing Authority and elevator maintenance company, who defend on the basis that plaintiff jumped off the platform in an apparent suicide attempt, want a bifurcated trial, arguing that plaintiff’s injuries, which include amputation of one leg and paralysis, have no important bearing on the issue of liability. In opposition, plaintiff argues, [249]*249albeit without expert support, that had he jumped off the platform he would have sustained additional injuries to his upper torso, such that his injuries do have a bearing on the issue of liability. Assuming this to be true, plaintiff’s concerns should have been assuaged by defendants’ offer to stipulate to the absence of torso injuries and not to oppose the introduction of evidence of the head injury caused by the elevator door. Thus, plaintiff will be able to make the liability jury aware of the nature of his injuries to the extent necessary to show that a head injury caused him to fall off the platform and to argue that torso injuries would be present had he jumped. Although plaintiff does not argue that his leg and spinal injuries could only have happened if he fell, making those injuries seemingly irrelevant to liability, simple observation will make the jury aware at least of plaintiff’s loss of a leg. Bifurcated trials are encouraged (22 NYCRR 202.42 [a]) unless the nature of the injuries are such as to have an important bearing on liability (Mignott v Sears, Roebuck & Co., 101 AD2d 731), and are meant precisely for situations such as this. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 248, 642 N.Y.S.2d 279, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faber-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack